It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why I read the King James Bible

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:02 PM
In some of the posts made by different members a question keeps arising in various forms. Christians wish to know which Bible version is the best. By best I’ll assume that you wish to read a Bible that most accurately conveys the meaning of the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Non-Christians have also inquired as to why some of us have stated that we only read from the Authorized King James version.

In 1994 while serving as a Riverside County Deputy Sheriff in Indio, California I committed my life to serve and follow my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I quickly set out to purchase a Bible at the local Christian bookstore. Upon my arrival at the store I was greeted by aisle after aisle of Bibles. They came in several different translations and styles I didn’t have a clue as to which one would be best for me.

I waded through the Bibles one at a time looking for one that would jump out at me and claim me as its new owner. In front of the Bibles advertisers for the various translations had everything from stickers to colorful stand-up placards claiming that their translation was the best. Each publishing house gave reasons as to why their Bible was the best. Some claimed that they translated from the best and oldest manuscripts. Others claimed that they were easier to read and had been translated in modern English.

All of the advertisements had one thing in common. They all directly compared themselves to the Authorized King James Bible as the standard to beat. I didn’t notice this fact at the time as my head was to busy swimming in all the claims made by each publisher. After all, I wanted the best Bible and surely the newer translations where going to be the most accurate and easiest to read.

Most of the advertising lay in favor of the New International Version as being the best Bible ever produced by men. I opened one up and found it simple to read and loaded with study aids and translator comments as side notes. I had no idea the mistake I was making at the time so I gleefully walked to the cashier and purchased my first Bible! I couldn’t wait to open my prize, my heart was longing to know the truth that I had forsaken in my pursuit of worldly things.

During the time that I read my NIV Bible I also made weekly trips to the Christian bookstore and purchased books four and five at a time. At this point I was reading about three to five Christian books a week and my faith was growing. More than a year later I started to attend Calvary Chapel Church in Palm Desert, California. It was at this time that I was reintroduced to the King James Bible.

The Pastor at this church, Chuck Wooley, read from the King James Bible and each seat had a copy within arms reach. I picked up a copy and something strange happened, I felt like I was holding a valuable artifact. This King James was bound in red hardback and was heavily worn. I opened the Bible and began to read from it and a flood of memories came back to me from when I was a child. In my youth we had a King James Bible in the house but it was put away with the rest of our books high up on a shelf. We rarely attended church and never studied the Bible so it spent most of its life gathering dust and acting as a heavy bookend to the other books on the shelf.

I looked at that old red book and recalled scriptures long forgotten and a majesty and power that I had known only briefly in my youth. After that day in church I decided to purchase a King James Bible. I still believed that my NIV was a better translation, but something about that King James made me want to own a copy. As the years went by I found myself reaching for the King James more and more. I also discovered some things about my NIV Study Bible that did not ring true. In one instance the NIV Study Bible had a large section that gave an alternate understanding of the event when Moses and the Jews crossed the Red Sea. In this new understanding the book declared that the waters where Moses crossed where only a few inches deep at the time of the crossing. No miracles involved, just a seasonal change that allowed God’s people to cross at that time. I knew something was wrong with this nonsense! How could this NIV Study Bible claim in one section that the waters crossed where only a few inches deep but in the next few passages describe how Pharaohs Army was destroyed when the waters closed up on them as they crossed, drowning them all? My King James had no such notation and simple called it as it was. God had parted the mighty sea allowing for the Jews to cross then the Egyptians tried and got served a watery death.

This was my first taste of something bitter in the newer translations. I knew at that time that all Bibles were not the same. Did this bring me to the King James Bible? No, I still read from a newer translation, this time around I tried the New American Standard Version. I began to study the principles behind Bible translation and learned a few things. The terms, “dynamic equivalence”, “paraphrase”, “verbal equivalence”, “formal equivalence” became second hand to me. I understood why the various translations looked different one from another. It was because they were indeed different. They had come from different manuscript evidence they were translated by different translators using different techniques and they also brought their own agendas to the table.

Now I was truly confused. I had two choices at this time, drop the subject all together or dig deeper. I wanted the truth at all costs so I dug in for the long haul and set my mind to research this matter to whatever ends it would take me. I bought books about translation techniques and researched the foundations of most of the newer translations and the King James. What I discovered in this long journey was diabolical in nature.

I discovered that the majority of manuscript evidence is grossly in favor of the King James Bible not the other way around as the newer version publishers would have you to believe. I also examined the translators for each of the Bibles and found that many of them were not even Christians. Several didn’t even believe that the Bible was inspired and preserved by God even though scripture teaches us those very things. Who were these people that they thought they could bring in their own private interpretations of God’s Word? Why were they adding words, changing words and leaving important words out completely?

I found that key doctrines were missing from the newer bibles or had been changed to mean the exact opposite of what was written in the King James Bible. The Deity of Jesus was often diminished or left out. Satan was being confused for Jesus in certain scriptures. It went on and on and on. Hundreds of scriptures changed or left out or poorly translated. I began to see the hidden agendas of some of the translators shine through in the wording of the newer versions. An openly lesbian woman had a large part in translating the NIV and it shows. Key scriptures that clearly show the sin of sodomy and homosexual behavior were greatly altered and watered down in the NIV.

Hell was omitted many times over and damnation could not be found. One of the more egregious offenses was the removal of the blood of Jesus as having been shed for us all. It’s the shed blood of Jesus Christ that covers those who believe. It’s the blood that paid the price for our sin. Was blood no longer a politically correct word? Why was it removed in newer versions?

I’ve investigated this matter for several years and read countless books on the subject. I can say with the utmost certainty that the King James Bible is the finest translation ever to have been penned in the English language. In it you have: superior theology, superior manuscripts, superior translators and superior translation techniques.

In all that I’ve written here I have only barely scratched the surface of this very important topic. If anyone who reads this wants to begin his or her own research into the matter I would be more than happy to point you to some good books on the subject. I have found my research greatly rewarding and my faith in the King James Bible as the Living Word of God tremendously strengthened.

For the first time in my walk I can hold up a King James Bible and not only claim that I have the Word of God but believe it with all my heart.

Washed in His blood,

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 01:26 AM
I do have an NKJV and a NIV. I prefer the NKJV a lot like you like the KJV. However, my NIV is a smaller book and fits in my backapack for school, but thats not important. The NIV has something severely lacking feeling about it, and I just cant trust it, its strange. The nKJV is my first bible I got from a friend. It seems to be the exact same thing as the KJV, same sentence structure etc but it is easier to read because it is in more modern english, as opposed to Elizibethan.

And I'm learning Hebrew, not trusting some other persons translation lol. Gonna learn Greek later too. Seriously, the KJV is extremely accurate though. You have to remember that the object behind creating the Amplified and NIV and such bibles was money.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:21 PM
The deceptivness of using the KJV because of its langauge hinders the ability of ones grwoth in faith.

The language of Jacobean English is differant to the languages of today, nobody I know uses the word "Concision" in normal speach. THe KJV is full of words which have changed in meaning of fallen into disuse since 1611. It is easy, but unproductive to confuse and mislead people by quoting the scriptures in the archaic langauge of the KJV. We see this all the time where it is almsot allways those who claim that thier own interpitations of the scriptures is infallible who use the KJV, and they do it because the KJV often requires explination for moderan people, and the in the explination is is allways possible to insert your own theological bias.

Many who have gone before us in the faith, from John Wycliffe, or Martin Luther onwards, risked thier lives, or gave them for the principle that the scriptures should be made availible to the people in the common language of the day. in the time of the reformation in England, the scriptures were availible in the churches and universities in latin, and most educated people could read them. It was not enough, it had to be freely availible, and it had to be in a langauge which the ordinary people could udnerstand. it is for this reason that bible translators have contuinued thier work in the past 400 years, and will ahve to continue it for the years to come in human history.

The arguments for using the KJV sound like the same of the 16th centueray for retaining latin, you could almsot hear the patronizing comments about those who "cannot understand" as if it were their problem they dont understand latin.

the NKJV is better but i still concider it second rate, but at least it is a moderan langue. There is no better way to unsderstand the scrptures then to learn ancient hebrew and/or greek. The next best thing is to consult 2 or 3 moderan translations. Matters of faith are far too important to be discussed in obscure and archaic language, espcially with so many alterantives.

here are some examples of confusing using the KJV

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven

the word "suffer" in KJV has nothign to do with suffering, but has the meaning "Let"

Romans 1:13a Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purpsed to come unto you, (But was let hitherto)

"let" in the above verse means actaully "Prevent" and has this meaning today only in cetain legal contexts.

Psalm 119:147 I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word

"prevented" in this verse is a rendering of the latin word "prevenio" meaning "went before" so the Psalmist is mearly saying he got up before sunrise, isntead of doing feats that would impress Superman

A large number of words in the KJ new Testement come from the Latin Vulgate, and not the greek. THe translators in the Preface to the readers (which is often not reprinted these days) said they specifically used the "Old eccliastical words" which had been hallowed by long use withen the Catholic Church, in preferance to Tyndale's more English Phrases.

Now DanD9 do you mind providing any proof to the statement that the Interantional Bible Society is mainly in the translating business with their NIV Bible to make money? From what I know they have Translated the new testement into 78 differant languages, and have done 33 complete translations and have also helped to translate scripture into over 600 differant langauges. Often the bible is used as a way to help and encouraged struggling people in poor countries to learn how to read.

Persoanlly I used the NIV, becasue I have found it is the most accurate when compared to the orginal langauge, even tho it has a few flaws. Not to metion it is the msot popular translation into contemorary English.

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:48 PM

Some links to chew on for those who prefer the NIV over the KJV.

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:12 AM
do you understand taht the sight you liked to is run by "Dial-the-truth ministires" which is a fundamentilist Church who belives that only the KJV should be used and belives that scientist have dug down into the earth and found hell, they even have a recording of the sounds of the damned screaming

and is found to be COMPLETLY FALSE

might find a more reliable source of info, or even go to the IBS site which has a wealth of information about how they translate the bible, and bible translations themselves. yo can even find thier combined finacial statements up to Septemeber of 2004. How more open do you need to be?

since it is a Charter Member of the ECFA it is highly inplausible they have the ability to use the NIV just to make money. For Gods sake people do some basic research before you fly off the handle with something that makes you look stupid and arrogent

[edit on 9/4/2005 by Jehosephat]

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:23 PM

do you understand that the sight you liked to is run by "Dial-the-truth ministires" which is a fundamentilist Church who belives that only the KJV should be used and belives that scientist have dug down into the earth and found hell, they even have a recording of the sounds of the damned screaming

LMAO.....They have a recording of the damned screaming. I thought I heard the damned screaming once when I was on shrooms....poor bastards. Then I realized it was just my neighbors battling it out like they do about once a week. They are a bunch damned bastards though those neighbors. Reals pains in the butt! Always yelling and screaming and throwing things. A little too much alcohol consumption if you ask me. And I don't believe they read any version of the Bible...

Back to the Bible.....when considering any Bible, consider who translated it!!

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:17 PM
anyone who clings to the KJV needs to educate themselves on how the bible is translated into onther langauges from older documents, on of the main aguements KJV users have agaisn the NIV is that the NIV leaves out passages. Which is true, but they never bother to explain why. The basics are that if you take 10 copies of the same document authoers over 1000 years and only 1 or two fo them have a passage the others do not, you often do not include that passage. But if you get a full version if the NIV and not the free handouts which jsut includes the NT you dont get the appedix at the bottom of the page that points out that SOME manuscripts had an extra passage.

THere have been many more discoveries of older manucripts since the 1600s and it is sad that KJV users are missing out on those. while those that read more conteporary and moderan versions do have access to those

top topics


log in